INEC’s Stance on ADC Leadership Crisis
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has declared that it will not recognize the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), including former Senator President David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola, as national chairman and national secretary, along with other members of the party’s National Working Committee (NWC). This decision comes amid an ongoing legal dispute over the party’s leadership structure. The electoral commission has also stated it will not monitor the ADC’s upcoming national convention scheduled for April 14, maintaining the status quo in the leadership crisis.
The National Commissioner and Chairman of the Information and Voter Education Committee of INEC, Mohammed Haruna, who made this disclosure in a statement, emphasized that the commission has rejected requests to allow Nafiu Bala Gombe to take over the affairs of the party while the court case is pending. He added that INEC will not engage with any of the contending groups regarding the party’s affairs and will not monitor any meetings, congresses, or conventions convened by any faction of the ADC until the case is resolved.
The statement further noted that INEC will remove the names of the current NWC members led by Senator David Mark from its portal. Reaffirming its commitment to neutrality, impartiality, and compliance with court orders, INEC urged political parties and stakeholders to act responsibly to avoid disrupting preparations for the 2027 General Elections.
Haruna explained that the decision was made following a careful review of the Appeal Court ruling delivered on March 12, 2026, as well as the pending suit before the Federal High Court in Abuja. The commission resolved to maintain the status quo ante bellum, in compliance with the judgment of the Court of Appeal and in deference to the ongoing proceedings before the Federal High Court.
INEC revealed that it had received separate letters dated March 16, 2026, from two law firms representing different interests in the party. One letter, written by Suleiman Usman SAN and Co. on behalf of concerned stakeholders, cautioned the commission against recognizing Nafiu Bala Gombe as Acting National Chairman while the matter remains before the court. In contrast, Summit Law Chambers, representing Gombe, urged INEC to enforce the Court of Appeal’s judgment by ceasing recognition of David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola as National Chairman and National Secretary of the party and to remove their names from INEC’s portal and refrain from dealing with them.
INEC further disclosed that in another letter dated March 27, Summit Law Chambers alleged that the commission had “disobeyed the Court of Appeal’s orders” by inviting the Senator David Mark’s group to political parties’ meetings and by monitoring a purported National Executive Committee meeting convened by the group.
The commission cited the appellate court’s directive, noting that the Court of Appeal dismissed the interlocutory appeal filed by Senator David Mark and directed that the parties must maintain the status quo ante bellum pending the determination of the substantive suit. The court also ordered an accelerated hearing of the case in view of the Electoral Timetable and warned parties against taking any steps that could prejudice the matter.
Providing background to the dispute, INEC stated that the current National Working Committee (NWC) of the party emerged from a National Executive Council meeting held on July 29, 2025, following the resignation of the previous leadership led by Mr. Ralph Okey Nwosu. It explained that Gombe, who was then Vice National Chairman, maintains that he did not resign and that by virtue of the party’s constitution, he should assume leadership following the resignation of the Chairman.
The commission added that he subsequently filed a suit at the Federal High Court on September 2, 2025, seeking to restrain Senator David Mark’s group from parading themselves as party leaders and to compel INEC to recognize him as Acting National Chairman, confirming that the names of the current National Working Committee led by Senator David Mark were uploaded to its portal on September 9, 2025, following a request received on September 4, 2025.
After reviewing all processes, INEC said it had resolved to maintain the situation as it existed before September 2, 2025, when the suit was filed, adding that it would refrain from taking any action that could undermine the proceedings before the Federal High Court.
ADC’s Response to INEC’s Decision
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has rejected INEC’s interpretation of the Court of Appeal ruling, alleging that the electoral body acted under pressure from a government that is “scared of the opposition momentum despite its efforts to destroy all opposition parties and foist a one-party rule on Nigeria.” In a statement signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, the ADC described INEC’s position as contradictory and inconsistent with facts, insisting that it would publicly clarify these issues, while warning that the commission has effectively sided with the government against Nigerians.
ADC said it is currently reviewing its options and will announce its next steps soon, urging its members and the public to remain steadfast as events unfold. The party said: “We reject INEC’s interpretation of the Court of Appeal ruling. We knew that INEC was being pressured by a government that has become jittery from the ADC’s rising momentum even in the face of its relentless assault on all opposition parties. INEC’s press statement is full of contradictions that fly in the face of both facts and reason. We shall clarify these contradictions for all to see. What is clear, however, is that INEC has caved to pressure and has chosen to side with the government against the Nigerian people. We are currently reviewing our options, and we shall make these known soon.”
Perspectives from Political Analysts
A former director at INEC, Mr Nick Dazang, in his reaction, said the commission has an established principle, going back to more than ten years, that as the chief driver of the electoral process, it will obey court orders. He said this is to set an example to other stakeholders in the electoral process, to promote a law-governing process and to avert anarchy. “In the instance of this case, we do not have the full purport of the Court Order. It is therefore very challenging for one to comment. However, in view of speculations hitherto bandied, one would expect the commission to exercise maximum circumspection and caution so that its neutrality and impartiality are not put to question.”
Professor Muhammad Sani Bello, popularly known as Mainan Zazzau, an ADC chieftain in Kaduna, stated that the party communicated its convention dates weeks ago without any objection from INEC. Therefore, “INEC cannot suddenly claim that it will not recognize any communication from the party’s leadership.” “As far as the ADC is concerned, it has already communicated with INEC regarding its planned state congress scheduled for the 7th of this month, as well as the convention scheduled for the 14th. So if INEC’s letter says that it made a mistake due to some legal issues, that is their problem, not ours. That will not affect our party in any way because we are going ahead with our convention as planned,” he said.
Similarly, Barrister Jerry Irimiya Kantiok of the ADC, in his reaction, said the commission cannot undo what its predecessor had done under the pretense of a court order granting accelerated hearing. “Court orders do not have retroactive effect, and the purported motions, both ex parte and on notice, have not been heard. It is a pure hatchet job by INEC on April 1. I hope it is not an April Fool’s stunt. It is apparent that the APC is doing everything to truncate our democracy. It is truly annoying that this scenario is playing out. The ruling by the Court of Appeal does not require any extended or malicious interpretation. It is often said that ‘the person who allows his head to be used to break a coconut will not be around to partake in eating it. The intention is to discourage the massive influx into the ADC. No one can stop a moving train. Let us be resolute and stand together with our national officers,” he said.
Implications for the 2027 Elections
A Professor of Political Science at Bayero University Kano, Kamilu Sani Fage, has described the development as a temporary setback. He said the party can still overcome it if it puts its house in order. Speaking to Daily Trust, Prof. Fage said the commission’s stance could slow down the party’s preparations ahead of the deadline for submission of candidates’ lists, but insisted that the challenge was surmountable. “To not recognize the current caretaker committee, I think it will be a stumbling block to the party, because it may set their process a little bit back. But I don’t think the other side that went to court is doing it on their own accord. Perhaps this would confirm that they are being sponsored by the ruling APC,” he said.
He warned that if the party chooses to pursue litigation, time may work against it, noting that political parties have barely one month to submit their candidates and membership lists to INEC. The university don also explained that while the situation is difficult, the party could still come out stronger if internal disputes are resolved politically rather than through prolonged court processes. The professor cautioned that if the litigant continues to stand in the way, the ADC may struggle to meet INEC’s deadline, thereby jeopardising its chances in the forthcoming elections.
Fage said INEC’s refusal to recognize the faction led by David Mark “will shed some cloud around the neutrality and independence of the organisation.” “Because, if you put the two decisions now, on one hand, INEC has refused to recognize this one, and on the other hand, look at how quickly it recognized the infraction in PDP. All this casts doubt that perhaps the ruling party is all out to muzzle the opposition,” he said. He warned that such a development could have far-reaching consequences for Nigeria’s democracy.
Concerns Over Uncontested Elections
A political analyst, Jide Ojo, has said the leadership crisis in the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and the resulting decision by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) could undermine the party’s chances in the 2027 general elections. “The challenge is basically with our judiciary. When you have courts deciding the fate of political parties, you will witness something of this nature. I have warned our political parties against relying too heavily on courts,” he said.
He explained that after reviewing INEC’s detailed statement, the commission appeared to have followed due process. “I read the full text issued by Commissioner Mohammed Kudu Haruna, and it detailed the background issues and why the commission is taking that decision. You find out that the commission has tried at every turn to obey court decisions,” he said. “When there is now a Court of Appeal decision asking that status quo ante bellum should be maintained, INEC, through its Department of Legal Services, sought legal opinion and decided to act in the best interest by not recognizing either the Gombe faction or the David Mark faction until the case is decided,” he added.
Ojo, however, warned that the ADC risks “shooting itself in the foot” if the crisis lingers. He warned that aspirants may begin to explore alternative political platforms. According to him, defections may not necessarily favour the ruling party alone, as politicians could move to smaller but more stable platforms.
Risks of an Uncontested Election
Meanwhile, Human rights lawyer, Professor Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, had warned earlier that going by the Electoral Act 2026, Nigeria risks having an uncontested election in 2027 reminiscent of what General Sani Abacha tried to do during his regime. He recalled that in Nigeria, General Sani Abacha, who ruled Nigeria from November 1993 to 1998, did not have anything against the idea of an election as long as it did not lead anyone into the misapprehension of a contest and was on the cusp of transitioning the country into elective governance in an election that would have been overseen by him where all five parties shared one presidential candidate in him.
He said the death of General Abacha in June 1998 frustrated that plan but opened up a playbook in election management that had, until now, not been seriously revisited in Nigeria. He said by the time the All Progressives Congress (APC) came to power in Nigeria in 2015, the African Union (AU) had logged about 500 election observer missions around the continent. Over that period, the OAU/AU still did not see an election that it did not approve of.
He added: “Regular courts oversee pre-election litigation but only election petition tribunals can adjudicate on disputes over the outcome of an election. Until 2007, that distinction appeared well settled. However, following the 2007 cycle of elections, the Supreme Court awarded the governorship election in Rivers State to Rotimi Amaechi who was not even on the ballot in the vote. He had been manipulated out of the party primaries in an act of party political impunity. In response, the Supreme Court hijacked the election outcome on his behalf by judicial fiat in a case that had in fact originated as a pre-election dispute.”
That case raised the significance of pre-election disputes in Nigeria and consolidated the transfer of the right to vote in Nigeria from citizens to the judges. By 2019, the Supreme Court awarded the Governorship election in Zamfara State to a well-beaten candidate after disqualifying the winner in a pre-election dispute and precluding his party from the contest by refusing to order a re-run.
He said under colour of law, African governments have increasingly used the courts to re-make elections as largely free of contest recalling that six months ago, the President of Côte d’Ivoire, Alassane Ouattara, used the courts to ban all competitive candidates from the presidential election. When the result was announced, the election management body awarded him some 90 per cent of the votes.
This past week, retired President of the Court of Appeal, 82 year-old Isa Ayo Salami, floated the idea of such un-contested elections for Nigeria in remarks that simultaneously disparaged his former colleagues in the judiciary while also querying why they sanctioned the candidacy of Peter Obi of the Labour Party in the 2023 general elections.
It is worth recalling that in 2011, a committee of the National Judicial Council chaired by former President of the Court of Appeal, Umaru Abdullahi, considered a consolidated set of petitions concerning the conduct of Isa Ayo Salami in the Sokoto State governorship election in 2007.
He said Ayo Salami floated a kite which could consummate an Abacha-style election under a ruse of law.
“The Electoral Act 2026 creates ample room for such mischief. Among other things, the Act, which became law on February 19, requires all parties to maintain ‘a digital register of its members containing the name, sex, date of birth, address, State, Local Government, ward, polling unit, National Identification Number and photograph in both hard and soft copies. The logic of keeping this register in hard copy defies understanding. The staggering cost and logistics – not to mention waste – of doing so should not detain us at the moment. The Act goes further: the parties must submit the register (presumably both hard and soft copies) to the INEC at least 21 days before party primaries, which must occur between April 23 and the end of May. In effect, the parties, which have until now not been required to have digital registers, must create them in less than two working months. The cost of failure to do this will be disqualification of their candidate(s) from the contest.”
“In 1979, the Federal Electoral Commission tried to disqualify Nnamdi Azikiwe of the Nigeria Peoples Party (NPP) and Aminu Kano of the Peoples’ Redemption party (PRP) from the presidential elections. The courts saved them.”
He added, “Nigeria’s judiciary has evolved and not necessarily for the better in the intervening period. There is ample room for pre-election judicial mischief in the 2026 Electoral Act, which the courts could easily use to preclude competitive candidates from the contest. It will be surprising if this is not deployed to block competitive candidates from the presidential election in January 2027. The irony is that the president whose claim to fame is his advocacy against military rule, could be the person who eventually appropriates the methods of Nigeria’s maximum military ruler to make himself the only competitive candidate in an un-contested election in 2027.”
